The Theory of Evolution and the Biblical account of Creation - are they compatible? - Think Atheist2015-03-31T22:49:26Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/the-theory-of-evolution-and-the-biblical-account-of-creation-are?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1233208&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHere is a very good video on…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14156752013-12-12T21:39:17.135ZReg The Fronkey Farmerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RegPerry
<p><a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/evolution-a-good-explaination" target="_blank">Here is</a> a very good video on the Theory of Evolution.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/evolution-a-good-explaination" target="_blank">Here is</a> a very good video on the Theory of Evolution.</p> Reminds me of the title of a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14154582013-12-12T16:51:15.790ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Reminds me of the title of a book I needed to read once 'Hangups From Way Back'.</p>
<p>Sadly, I need to read the sequel, 'Modern Day Hangups from the 1950's'.......;p(</p>
<p>Reminds me of the title of a book I needed to read once 'Hangups From Way Back'.</p>
<p>Sadly, I need to read the sequel, 'Modern Day Hangups from the 1950's'.......;p(</p> During my last few installmen…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14152362013-12-12T16:17:15.701ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>During my last few installments of evolutionary theory, there was a long conversation about teleology. This relates to the question of 'ends', in this case 'a good end'. Does evolution have a 'good' end, or is it a blind or undirected process?</p>
<p>Given the basic components or drivers of evolution, their is no suggestion of a 'driver' separate from or above the nature that the organism is embeded in. 'Nature' is assumed or postulated as the only context that would need to be considered.…</p>
<p>During my last few installments of evolutionary theory, there was a long conversation about teleology. This relates to the question of 'ends', in this case 'a good end'. Does evolution have a 'good' end, or is it a blind or undirected process?</p>
<p>Given the basic components or drivers of evolution, their is no suggestion of a 'driver' separate from or above the nature that the organism is embeded in. 'Nature' is assumed or postulated as the only context that would need to be considered. Within this context, competion for resources(predation), survival to procreation and selection of decendents conditioned upon environment. Latter genetics became a mature science adding additional details. </p>
<p>If there is a 'telelogical' signal within evolution, it is consider as a best fit to the moving target of natural/environmental conditions.</p> Yes, it's a grave error to sp…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14149762013-12-12T14:57:31.782ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>Yes, it's a grave error to speak of "purpose." Purpose implies a conscious intent, so the other side of a conversation might think you are implicitly conceding a conscious purpose behind things, therefore god.</p>
<p>The idiomatic usage of English, however, has purposiveness built into everything; it's no accident not because of a religious conspiracy but because we are wired to see agency in things preferentially (the better to spot predators). "The heart's purpose is to pump blood to the…</p>
<p>Yes, it's a grave error to speak of "purpose." Purpose implies a conscious intent, so the other side of a conversation might think you are implicitly conceding a conscious purpose behind things, therefore god.</p>
<p>The idiomatic usage of English, however, has purposiveness built into everything; it's no accident not because of a religious conspiracy but because we are wired to see agency in things preferentially (the better to spot predators). "The heart's purpose is to pump blood to the rest of the body." If one is <em>really</em> careful you can train yourself to phrase statements like that as "the heart's <em>function</em>..." etc.</p> Couldn't agree more. If ther…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14149702013-12-12T12:47:56.722ZDavid Smithhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidSmith930
<p>Couldn't agree more. If there is a flaw in the way our minds developed to search for answers, its in the reluctance to give up the old theories when a new, more logically favourable conclusion presents its self.</p>
<p>Couldn't agree more. If there is a flaw in the way our minds developed to search for answers, its in the reluctance to give up the old theories when a new, more logically favourable conclusion presents its self.</p> Well, I've heard (alleged) ju…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14149482013-12-12T03:05:52.485ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>Well, I've heard (alleged) justifications of Jesus needing to save us that don't rely on the original sin--in essence the claim is we violate god's law for whatever reason and the penalty is... well, I won't belabor it, same horseshit, different day.</p>
<p>Well, I've heard (alleged) justifications of Jesus needing to save us that don't rely on the original sin--in essence the claim is we violate god's law for whatever reason and the penalty is... well, I won't belabor it, same horseshit, different day.</p> If evolution is true then the…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-12:1982180:Comment:14152122013-12-12T02:18:24.789ZTimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Tim423
<p>If evolution is true then there never was a "first man and woman". So the story about Adam and Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden falls apart. And if they didn't eat the apple then there wasn't an "Original Sin". If there wasn't an original sin then we weren't all born as sinners and there wasn't any need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us.</p>
<p>If evolution is true then there never was a "first man and woman". So the story about Adam and Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden falls apart. And if they didn't eat the apple then there wasn't an "Original Sin". If there wasn't an original sin then we weren't all born as sinners and there wasn't any need for Jesus to die on the cross to save us.</p> ‘Purpose’ and ‘Design’ apply…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-11:1982180:Comment:14150252013-12-11T23:14:55.053Zmax stirnerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RickPovero480
<p><strong>‘Purpose’ and ‘Design’ apply neither to our kind nor to the universe</strong><br></br><br></br>Everyone in western cultures inherits a dead explanatory scheme far older than the so-called great monotheisms: nature was designed and that humanity serves some purpose within it. Neither is true. <br></br><br></br><em>• Darwin profoundly de-deified (secularized) western culture</em><br></br><br></br>Long after On the origin of species (1859) became a treasured historic text, fundies claim 154 years later that…</p>
<p><strong>‘Purpose’ and ‘Design’ apply neither to our kind nor to the universe</strong><br/><br/>Everyone in western cultures inherits a dead explanatory scheme far older than the so-called great monotheisms: nature was designed and that humanity serves some purpose within it. Neither is true. <br/><br/><em>• Darwin profoundly de-deified (secularized) western culture</em><br/><br/>Long after On the origin of species (1859) became a treasured historic text, fundies claim 154 years later that Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET) must collapse. In support they quote a fictional divinity in a mythological text.<br/><br/>In criticizing Darwin and Darwin’s works, they will no more refute MET than their attacking Newton or the <em>Principia</em> would refute classical mechanics. Darwinism and Newtonianism are among the most impressive of human artifacts based on their cultural impact alone, with far wider and more positive effects than any monotheism. But as acceptable guides to nature both theories have long been superseded.<br/><br/>Starting with a volume of essays, <em>Ever Since Darwin</em>, Steve Gould exposed the anti-intellectual xian frauds years ago. He will convince all but the obtuse. <br/><br/>Fundies can never forgive Darwin. He broke their iron rice bowl of intellectually respectable supernaturalism. Ever since Darwin, western religion has fallen to crackpots, brainwashed adolescents, seditious politicians, and televangelist frauds.<br/><br/><em>• 'design' and 'purpose' belong only to cultures</em><br/><br/>As long as scientists insist upon using 'machine' and 'mechanism' in explanations of nature -- they too will support a fiction of extra-cultural purpose and design. Of course physical entities express mechanical and geometrical principles abstracted by humankind’s geniuses, but there are no divine schematics or instruction manuals. <br/><br/><em>•nature is silent</em><br/><br/>All scientific explanations are human artifacts. Darwin’s master conceptual engine, natural selection, forever abolished from biological explanation the “teleological cause” of Aristotle and the "ideal forms" of Plato. Purpose and Design are dead.<br/><br/>As a youthful Darwin tartly remarked in recently published <em>Notebook M</em> (entry 128): “Plato says . . . that our 'necessary ideas' arise from the preexistence of the soul. That [they] are not derivable from experience — read monkeys for preexistence.”<br/><br/>In print, Darwin deliberately forbade himself provocative language. He knew the sober text of 'Origins' to be provocation enough.<br/><br/></p> While I think that the 'scien…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-11:1982180:Comment:14149242013-12-11T21:35:35.641ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>While I think that the 'scientific method', as a habit of thought, started way before we had a language, it seems doubtful that it was as well organized as present. I might even venture that 'magic' and 'herbs', as methods of organizing information from nature insights, could have been its early precursor. We really should give humans some credit for never giving up, always looking for knowledge, and finding ways for that 'knowledge' to be preserved. Sadly a lot of 'junk' also made the trip…</p>
<p>While I think that the 'scientific method', as a habit of thought, started way before we had a language, it seems doubtful that it was as well organized as present. I might even venture that 'magic' and 'herbs', as methods of organizing information from nature insights, could have been its early precursor. We really should give humans some credit for never giving up, always looking for knowledge, and finding ways for that 'knowledge' to be preserved. Sadly a lot of 'junk' also made the trip along with us... </p> I really cant see how. That…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-12-11:1982180:Comment:14149932013-12-11T15:20:53.766ZDavid Smithhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidSmith930
<p>I really cant see how. That said I don't think religion is compatible with a healthy view of the world in any form.</p>
<p>I really cant see how. That said I don't think religion is compatible with a healthy view of the world in any form.</p>